Filed under: Advertising, Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Context, Craft, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Documentary, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Management, Marketing, Music, Perspective, Provocative, Purpose, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Respect, Standards, Strategy, Stubborness, Stupid, Success, Teamwork
A while back, I did some work for the rock band Journey.
The ‘Don’t Stop Believin’ mob.
Anyway, without going into too much detail – though a lot of what I’m going to say is common knowledge so I’m not contravening my NDA, and trust me, I asked – it was a rather tension-filled experience.
Not Red Hot Chili Peppers – or should I say Anthony Kiedis – levels of tension, but definitely not chill, put it that way – hahaha.
This time though, it had nothing to do with me and everything to do with 2 of the band members being at loggerheads.
As I said, the fracture in their relationship has been well documented – and I had been warned before hand – but by the time I was involved with them, it was bordering on toxic.
At this point I feel I should point out they were nothing but kind and considerate to me, but like a guest at a dinner party hosted by a couple who had obviously had a major row prior to your arrival – you could feel the tension in every interaction.
But this is less about that and more about the management teams amazing ability to facilitate and negotiate a truce.
Obviously I can’t go into the specifics, but I watched something magical literally unfold in front of my eyes,
Think of it like a cross between the lessons in the hostage negotiation book, ‘Never Split The Difference’, and Kim Papworth.
For those who don’t know who Kim is, he’s the brilliant ex-ECD of Wieden+Kennedy London – and longtime partner to the brilliant-but-bonkers Tony Davidson – who had this incredible ability to keep ideas he believed in on the table … even when clients were initially protesting against them. But here’s the thing about him that was so good.
It was never through bombastic actions.
Never through threats or intimidation.
Never through pandering or false promises.
But always through listening, then gently providing context, clarity, understanding and perspective.
Nudging them forward, rather than pushing them back.
This is similar to what I saw with Journey, with the result of this approach being this:
I have to say the ability to achieve this outcome was inconceivable to me..
Let’s be honest, you can tell from the tweet that it was not something that was easy. Hell, you can tell from the tweet it was not something even the band members expected to achieve.
But it happened because of the work of the management team – who happen to also be Metallica’s long-term management, so are well versed in knowing how to deal with ‘human differences’ as well as musical ones.
Anyway, having seen this happen up close and personal, I can tell you it is more than a skill, but an art. Well, that and starting the whole process with the steadfast belief there was a solution to be found, even if it no one knewwhere, how or when it would happen.
[I wrote another post about this sort of mindset, also involving hostage negotiator, here]
But it is these two criteria that allowed them to help take opposing forces on a journey they likely never imagined they could go on, let alone initially want to. But to achieve that and then get them to be thankful for it while never feeling pushed, cornered, provoked or bullied … is, to put it bluntly, fucking incredible.
I say all this is because I feel too often the way our industry deals with conflict is with more conflict. Or, alternatively, just putting our collective heads in the sand.
Sure, there are occasions – and individuals – where you have to be aggressive.
As Gloria Allred – the powerful US lawyer, of which there is an interesting documentary about her – once said: “Sometimes, power responds to power”.
But that has to be the exception rather than the rule.
In the vast majority of cases, the goal should never be one person gets battered into submission by the other. The key objective has to be ensuring you have properly listened and understood the issues causing the friction … because with this, you can then help both sides appreciate, value and identify what a mutually advantageous outcome could offer for both parties so they feel positive about taking a step closer towards each other.
I say this like you are an intermediary, but I also mean it when you are the one in the conflict.
Now of course this approach won’t always work, but too often our default setting is ‘submit or savage’ and frankly, no one really wins when we adopt either stance.
I appreciate for some people reading this, they’ll be thinking I have a hell of a nerve writing all this when I can have an argument in an empty house – however, over the years I have [slowly] learned that if you want to increase the odds of making great work actually happen, it’s not just about being good at your job … or having taste … or identifying and valuing a good idea you fine tune with craft … you need to know how to deal and address conflict.
Doesn’t matter what job you have.
Doesn’t matter how long you’ve been doing it.
Doesn’t even matter what level of role you’re in.
The fact is, great opportunities are born more from unity, than friction.
So if you want to ensure you keep the tension in the work, rather than the relationship … learn the art of conflict resolution, because that will do more to help you actually create great work, brands and careers than any marketing process or ‘alleged’ mini MBA.
There’s no blog posts till Monday as there’s another holiday in NZ [I know, I know] … so have a great weekend and try not to get into any trouble.
Or if you do, use the context from this post to practice getting out of it, haha.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, British, Cars, Class System, Egovertising, Emotion, England, Equality, Experience, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, Individuality, Mediocrity, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Status, Status Anxiety
Years ago, when we had cynic, George did some research on car ownership in the UK.
It focused on how drivers – specifically, British male drivers – saw car heirarchy and how they reacted and responded to it in their daily lives.
I remember us presenting it to clients who were shocked by the spoken and unspoken rules and cues of the road.
I say this for 2 reasons.
1. I recently saw an old BBC program that perfectly encapsulates George’s findings.
2. It’s near the end of the year and I’m running out of things to write about.
[Don’t get too excited, it’s only temporary, and it’s not like it impacts quality, ha]
Ignoring point 2 for a moment, the documentary was fascinating.
An insight into the mind and behaviours of middle England.
The role of the class system.
The quest for materialism.
The importance of status.
And while the way they demonstrate this is equal parts sad, curious, petty and hilarious … it’s all underpinned by a level of transparency, honesty and self-awareness that you can’t help admire and kinda-relate to.
The need to be seen … to be respected … to progress … while all the time, being deeply aware of ‘your place’ in societies pecking order, including knowing how to deal with the expectations of behaviour placed upon you because of it.
While those not from the UK may read this and laugh at the ridiculousness of it all, I can assure you, it was not just very real, it was a source of huge personal anxiety, vulnerability and pressure.
Now I don’t know if this ‘company car driver attitude’ remains.
And I don’t know if the ‘company car driver’ attitude was more prevelent in the UK.
Plus I’m not even sure if company car ‘ownership’ is as big in the UK as it once was.
But what I do know is that before we judge those in the program, we should look at how we’re behaving currently as individuals and as a society … because it can be argued we’re more caught up in ‘materialism heirarchy’ than any British company car driver of 1994.
Hell, when status is now defined/judged/awarded as much by how we live as what we own, it could be said we’re more caught up in the rat race than ever before.
So enjoy the show, but remember it’s more a mirror than a moment in history.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Authenticity, Billionaire, Business, Colleagues, Comment, Contribution, Creativity, Culture, Distinction, Effectiveness, Emotion, Empathy, Equality, Imagination, Leadership, Loyalty, Management, Marketing, Relationships, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Sentimentality, Success, Teamwork
After the joy of yesterday’s post – which is more because of Otis celebrating his 10th birthday than anything I wrote – I thought I’d seize the good vibes by writing possibly the longest post I’ve ever written in the near 2 decades of writing this rubbish.
Of course I don’t assume anyone will read it – because who reads any of my stuff anyhow – but it is about an important lesson I learned recently and I wanted to document it – for me, if no one else.
So, one of the private clients I work with is worth an inconceivable amount of cash.
As in billions of dollars. Tens of them in fact.
Now I totally agree that having that amount of money is obscene, but what makes it easier – at least for me – is that:
They’re entirely self-made. They’re a true entrepreneur … taking on all the risk, rather than expecting others to cover it. They’re a patron and advocate for creativity. Not just in terms of their business, but creativity as a whole.
And if you think this all reads as being very ‘corporate toady’, you’d be right … because I am most definitely a fan.
But what’s interesting is how they make their money. Or should I say, how they create the conditions to be able to.
A few weeks ago, they asked me if I could fly to another country to meet someone for dinner.
Not just any person, but a bona-fide superstar. And no, I am not being hyperbolic.
Now there’s obviously a backstory as to how I found myself in this situation and why I was asked to do this by my client rather than [1] them or [2] someone more obvious and suitable – and the reason for it is more bonkers than you could imagine – but within a couple weeks, there I was, sitting opposite this world famous star, chatting about life while trying to act like it was all completely normal for me.
Of course, the person in question had done their homework so knew this meeting was legit, but at one point, they asked why I thought they should consider it.
After reinforcing I was the last person they should listen to, I simply said this:
“All I can tell you is everything they’ve done – and do – is built on wanting a long term relationship not a short term, quick-win”.
That was it. That was all I had.
Now there were 2 reasons I explained it this way.
One is because it’s true and the other is I wanted to convey that their ‘business model’ is playing the long game because it would be easy to assume anyone worth that amount of cash must be ruthless in how they operate and that could be very off-putting for someone who values their creative freedom and integrity.
What I mean when I say ‘long game’ is they invest in the individual, rather than ‘short-term opportunities’ … which means they not only are they happy to give the artists/partners the creative freedom – and control – that made them want to work with them in the first place, but they also don’t expect or demand a return on their investment in the shortest time possible because they see this as a relationship that will be measured in years, not projects.
Now, of course, there is method to this ‘modern-business-practice’ madness.
First is they believe that by investing in trust, transparency and relationship consistency, everyone will achieve a much greater return over a much longer period of time. Secondly is they obviously have no problem in knowing how to make money out of what they do so they know they’re not going to lose out being patient. And to top it all off, they’ve done a similar thing with many other high-profile celebrities/partners which – as they are all still engaged and involved years later – kind of proves they mean what they say.
Which leads to the point of this post.
Relationships matter.
I’m not talking about the sort where one person serves the whims and demands of another – which is how a lot of business today operates, especially in adland – but the type where the relationship acknowledges and values the skills, talent and benefits that each person brings to the table.
No short-changing or undermining. No downgrading or threatening. A relationship where the focus is on ‘what we can make create together’ rather than ‘what I you make out of you’.
How refreshing eh?
Except it shouldn’t be … it should be obvious, however thanks to procurement departments and corporate short-termism – we don’t see a lot of it these days.
At best, it’s a quick collab. At worst, its commercial exploitation.
In this case, my client wanted to work with this individual because they believe in them.
They like what they do.
They believe in how they think.
They’re excited by what can be made possible if they enable them to express their creativity at a different scale and through different art-forms than the ones they normally operate in.
But what makes this work is their appreciation of the artists mind.
The vulnerability of the creative process.
The need to explore before you commit.
The acknowledgement that when you try to create something no one has done before, it will fail before it wins.
And they’re there for it.
All of it.
They understand that to get to something great, the first step is to create an environment of encouragement and faith. Not just at the beginning of the process … but ongoing. Over and over again.
That doesn’t mean you pander. Nor does it mean you hold your opinions to yourself. But it does means you start off from a position of true alignment. Not just in terms of what your hopes and ambitions are, but how you want to realise them in terms of approach, expectations and responsibilities. Meaning everything you do comes from a position of shared responsibility and authority.
The other element is they also understand the adage of ‘it’s business, not personal’ is bullshit.
Business is personal.
Always.
The people who try to claim it isn’t are trying to justify bullshit behaviour.
It’s why my client spends a lot of their time connecting and committing to the other person. To make sure they’re not just in it together, but feel it.
Does that make ‘personal’ approach make things challenging at times?
Probably.
However by ensuring transparency and clarity from the beginning of the relationship – they not only build a relationship based on openness and honesty, they ensure the barriers that often get in the way of focusing on doing great things, get removed.
It all makes perfect sense, except we live in times where people choose to ignore it.
Preferring to optimise interactions.
To put themselves in positioning of authority.
To approach the relationship in terms of ‘what I can get out of them for the least amount of effort or loss of power’.
We’ve all met people like that.
Over the years I’ve had a bunch of people I’ve not heard from in years – or [thanks to Linkedin] never heard from in my life – get in contact wanting me to do something for them and I can literally feel the distain when I tell them, “I’m so sorry, I won’t be able to do that for you”.
I should clarify I have always tried to help people who ask for it … especially in terms of advice or a listening ear. However, when their ask is for me to connect them to friends, colleagues or clients for a shortcut to personal gain … unless they’re an old friend or someone I’ve had a long and personal experience of working with/alongside, they can fuck off.
It might sound harsh but I learned this the hard way.
One person in particular did this to me for a few times.
Continually contacting me under the guise of connecting with me but really wanting me to do something for them.
Contacts.
Introductions.
Feedback and advice.
And I did it, until I stopped.
Because I finally realised they were never contacting me for any other reason than to get something from me. They never just got in contact just to say hi. They never told me how my friends/colleagues had helped them. They never got back in touch to ‘ask me’ the questions they claimed they wanted to know – mainly because that was their ruse to get me to help them with other introductions.
I felt a bit stupid it took me so long, but I got there. And I cut them out my life because who needs that toxic shit.
And I get that sounds harsh, but I don’t care … especially as they still tried to use me until when the point they realised I wasn’t going to … so they went on a public rant about me that reinforced their ego, delusion and fragility.
Which gets to the final point of this post …
The word relationship is badly used, mis-defined and treated with ignorant flippancy.
It’s not about interactions or benefits, it’s about generosity, openness, understanding and trust.
You build it over time by investing and putting time into it.
Time to listen, share, discuss, engage, and give a shit.
It’s an act of consistency, equality and consideration … through good and bad.
And while I appreciate in these optimised, maximised, never-stray-from-the-process-or-rules, big-yourself-up-at-all-costs times, that may sound inefficient … but I have first hand proof, it’s much more effective.
In fact, it’s more effective than every marketing guru with their proprietary process/hyped-up, self-serving academic ‘degree’ – can ever imagine, let alone deliver.
Filed under: Agency Culture, Attitude & Aptitude, Collaboration, Colleagues, Comment, Complicity, Context, Corporate Evil, Culture, Differentiation, Diversity, Equality
Yes, I’m back. Kinda.
A storm in New York meant I missed my connecting flight to Auckland so ended up in Houston.
But if that wasn’t a big enough come down, maybe the hotel I found to spend the night was …
Because in NYC, I stayed in the utterly swank Crosby Street Hotel in Soho, in a room that – as a friend described – as “main character, intimidating-as-fuck, energy”.
Look at it!
How bloody New York awesome it is?
I got to spend 4 nights in that bloody gorgeous room and while I should have left on a cloud of joy and happiness, I found myself – just 12 hours later – in a room that I described to Jill as “the sort of place that could double as a crime scene in an episode of CSI. Houston Airport edition.”
There are 2 especially amazing things about that room.
The first is it wasn’t exactly cheap.
Sure, it was a lot cheaper than the Crosby Street Hotel, but when you take into account the city it was in and the location in the city that it was in … then the proportional difference in cost between the two, wasn’t much at all.
Or said another way, certainly not enough difference, hahaha.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with dodgy hotels – hell, I’ve stayed in enough of them in my time and they’re my ‘go-to’ when I’m footing the bill, but this was dodgy but at a premium[ish] price.
What’s funny is that when I saw it advertised – basically as the only hotel available at 11pm at night, when I got in, it was labelled as ****.
Naturally I assumed **** was its hotel rating, but as soon as I walked in, I realised it was actually just blanking out the word ‘SHIT’, hahaha.
Anyway, I survived and got back to NZ at 5am this morning – so this is the most up to date post I’ve ever written.
But it will also be the last post till Thursday as I now have to fly to Australia for a couple of days – so with that in mind, I’m going to leave you with the post I originally wrote to be shown today, mainly because I’m already tired of this post and I can’t be bothered to type anymore.
So until Thursday, let me ‘welcome you back’ with the first of my ‘piss and vinegar’ posts for this week.
The photo above is from a trip to Memphis – or more specifically, Memphis – way back in 2006 … and while it is both alarming and amusing that the local council seem to hate anything on wheels or 4 legs … I can’t help but feel this is a perfect metaphor for how many companies hire these days.
For all the conversations about diversity … conformity prevails.
Not just in terms of heritage, but backgrounds, interests, education.
A production line of parity.
But the really fucked-up bit is I believe many companies do want to ‘evolve’. They just can’t.
Or should I say, they just can’t help themselves stopping themselves from doing it.
So what happens is they do hire people who are different to everyone else in the company, however – if they then don’t conform to how the majority behave – they get let go for “not being the right cultural fit”.
In essence, they’re fired for being exactly who they were hired to be.
In nature, there’s this thing called ‘the edge effect’. It’s basically where different eco-systems – often found at the ‘edge’ of natural habitats – merge together and create something new. New possibilities created by new combinations. Evolution created by the acceptance of possibilities rather than the denial of them.
This is basically why we – as in, ‘humans’ – are still around, because despite humans giving it our best shot to kill the planet … nature keeps evolving to find ways to beat our bollocks.
In essence, it is constantly growing, evolving, adapting, and creating.
But in many companies today, they have adopted an opposing view.
More focused on denial, destruction, distain and dismissal.
In Japan there’s an old saying that goes, ‘the nail that sticks out gets hammered down’
Sadly, in a lot of companies, anyone who stands out does not even get viewed as a number anymore. Instead, they’re a nail to be beaten down by a bunch of tools … and when I say ‘tools’, I mean that literally and metaphorically.
See you Thursday, which will be before my family get to see me. You lucky people.
Ahem.
Filed under: A Bit Of Inspiration, Advertising, Agency Culture, Aspiration, Attitude & Aptitude, Brand, Brand Suicide, China, Cliches, Clothes, Comment, Communication Strategy, Complicity, Consultants, Context, Craft, Crap Products In History, Creative Development, Creativity, Culture, Cynic, Delusion, Distinction, Equality, Fake Attitude, Imposter Syndrome, London, Perspective, Planning, Point Of View, Professionalism, Relevance, Reputation, Resonance, Respect, Wieden+Kennedy
This is a post about naming strategies.
Yes, I know I’ve talked about this before.
A lot of times before.
The processes.
The considerations.
The complications.
… but mainly it’s been about how certain branding consultancies charge an absolute fortune to come up with some utter nonsensical bullshit that they back up with 1000’s of pages of self-serving pseudo-science bullshit and still end up creating something pants. Kind of like the explanation of the Pepsi rebrand from 15 years ago. Or most Linkedin ‘guru’ pontification.
But the other side of this is when people choose to put no effort in whatsoever.
Hiding their recommendation behind terms such as ‘colloquial context’ or ‘cultural vernacular’.
Don’t get me wrong, there are times where a stripped back approach can be powerful.
A way to connect to society by taking their cultural references and contexts head-on.
Hell, cynic used to embrace an approach that we literally called, ‘unplanned‘.
However, while this was about removing any element of pomposity, it still had to elevate how people saw or connected to what we did. Any fool can churn out lowest common denominator stuff … but it takes a certain amount of skill and flair to develop something that not only connects and engages the masses, but does it in a way where the value of the product/brand is increased and improved to all.
We used to call this ‘massperation’ … which still makes me feel sick even today, hahahaha.
I say all this to justify something I saw recently.
Or should I say something Otis saw recently.
You see down the road from us there’s a house being built.
It’s in full-on construction mode and as it is on the way to Otis’ school, he passes it every day.
Anyway, one day he came and told me he’d seen the building site loo and was shocked with its name.
It was this:
That’s right, it’s called the ‘Shitbox’.
To be honest, I’m not sure if Otis should have been more surprised at the name or the fact it proudly states it’s a ‘high viz’ toilet box.
HIGH FUCKING VIZ!
Is the toilet going to be walking along the street late at night? Do builders have such bad eyesight they can’t find a 6 foot high toilet without it being painted bright orange? Are construction workers such bad drivers they need to be warned of where the portaloos are so as not to hit them?
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?
Anyway, I digress.
The point is that while calling the portaloo a ‘shitbox’ may make sense … I can’t help but feel it is also playing into the builder cliche. Sure, cliches happen because they represent a common behavior or attitude that is played out over a sustained period of time … but often this is only a ‘perceived’ behavior or attitude [usually promoted by an individual or organisation who have found a way to monetise the acceptance of this view] that victimizes anyone who does not live upto the cliche.
I appreciate you may think I’ve gone full-on woke … but apart from the fact I don’t think considering others is a bad thing, I see this behaviour over and over again.
Hell, even Jaguar – with their ‘interesting’ rebrand did it by revealing their new concept cars in pink and blue.
PINK AND FUCKING BLUE.
They made such a big deal about how they ‘delete ordinary’, ‘break moulds’ and ‘copy nothing’ and then they actively, loudly and proudly reinforce the most basic of gender stereotypes. On the World fucking stage!
I totally appreciate you can go over-the-top with this stuff – especially given this whole post was inspired by a building site portaloo. I also get people may think I am suggesting we should name products/brands with words that offer no defining characteristic to avoid any potential stereotype. But neither of those are what I’m trying to say.
All I am attempting to point out is that words matter. And while I fully appreciate naming is a difficult task, I find it fascinating companies spend millions on ‘solutions’ that tend to fall into either pompous, basic or made-up.
Or said another way, names that define, limit or pander rather than celebrate those who use them and the reasons they do.